My thoughts on Universal Background Checks, and my compromise.

[Enkrypter]

The only universal check that would ever work would be one that is completely cost free and anonymous and our Gov is not capable of allowing that to happen. It would be perverted into a registry.

 

[Scutter01]

How about "No"?

Let's force the "other side" to compromise for a change. I'm tired of giving away my freedom for nothing. I want MORE of my freedom back, not less and less.

I will not even entertain a discussion about all the ways in which I could compromise if a particular law is on the verge of passing. The second you start down that road, you've handed all of your rights away. You may as well give them all up now because you're going to give them all up eventually.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

These "collectors" are sure selling a lot of guns to not be "in the gun business".

Please be advised that a law already exists that requires a federal firearms license to be in the business of buying and selling firearms. 18 U.S.C. §923.

ATFE (and their confidential informants) is at every single Indy1500 show. For the past couple of years they even have a table.

I fail to see how requiring background checks at gun shows will accomplish anything as business would then be conducted just outside gun show property.

"Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." The UBC is a useless law.

Let me make a proposal: those who say they would consider UBCs, of any type, show me a state where this has reduced crime. Show me where this is effective AND has not resulted in additional calls for infringements.

In Colorado, after the guilt of Columbine, a statute forbidding private sales was added. It has prevented nothing but the free exercise of a civil right (keeping and bearing arms). As well, after banning private sales Colorado is now embolded to ban magazines.

Gun control is like a disease that only gets worse.

I submit California for irrebuttable evidence that background checks are feckless and only create more crime and fewer rights.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Oh, BTW, FTW, the NRA made a similar proposal (the affidavit) as a substitute to the 4473 in 1968.

 

[Mosineer]

Compromise, as we know, means that both sides "give up a little". When you sit down to compromise that which you already have, you've already lost.

NO MORE COMPROMISES. NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

Yep, I have to agree. We The People have been "infringed" enough

Compromise to a polititian is nothing but a tool to gain votes to further re-election chances, while watering down the rights of the people. And what part of the Constitution is to be compromised next. I say NO. Bans or the UBC are further infringements that shall not be tolerated. I just sent another set of corresponence off to this affect.

 

[Hop]

I would still love the ability to call NICS if I felt the buyer was not telling me the truth about being a "proper person".

 

[EvilElmo]

I would still love the ability to call NICS if I felt the buyer was not telling me the truth about being a "proper person".

Why bother bringing the feds into it? If you think they're not telling the truth then just don't deal with them.

Or do like many on this forum do (including myself) and only deal with people who have a LTCH.

 

[mistap]

I would still love the ability to call NICS if I felt the buyer was not telling me the truth about being a "proper person".

Just don't F'n sell to him then! You need the F'n government to make that decision for you, too?

 

[AlphaSig112]

My compromise.

Compromise- A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

I will keep all of the rights i have now with the addition of no restrictions on suppressors and modern full autos with class III info. In exchange I am willing to keep a bill of sale for all firearms I own or sell. I will not give this list to the government but I will provide it to LEO if asked for it by serial number of gun. Now I have made a compromise.

They are not giving anything up in this battle. Only I am giving an they are taking which makes it no compromise. Without getting something in return I am not willing to freely give up rights for a nonexistent form of safety.

 

[cbhausen]

Compromise, as we know, means that both sides "give up a little". When you sit down to compromise that which you already have, you've already lost.

NO MORE COMPROMISES. NOT. ONE. MORE. INCH.

^^^THIS^^^

 

[Hop]

Lighten up Francis.

If there's already a NICS system in place why should it be restricted to only an FFL?

This isn't a big issue with me. I never sell guns. I only loose them in boating accidents.

 

[Smokepole]

Please be advised that a law already exists that requires a federal firearms license to be in the business of buying and selling firearms. 18 U.S.C. §923.

ATFE (and their confidential informants) is at every single Indy1500 show. For the past couple of years they even have a table.

I fail to see how requiring background checks at gun shows will accomplish anything as business would then be conducted just outside gun show property.

"Useless laws weaken the necessary laws." The UBC is a useless law.

Let me make a proposal: those who say they would consider UBCs, of any type, show me a state where this has reduced crime. Show me where this is effective AND has not resulted in additional calls for infringements.

In Colorado, after the guilt of Columbine, a statute forbidding private sales was added. It has prevented nothing but the free exercise of a civil right (keeping and bearing arms). As well, after banning private sales Colorado is now embolded to ban magazines.

Gun control is like a disease that only gets worse.

I submit California for irrebuttable evidence that background checks are feckless and only create more crime and fewer rights.

The Dems in Colorado are on a roll and looking to pass 4 pieces of legislation (have cleared the House) regarding gun control. Even without the support of the Colorado Sheriff's Assn. Link: House approves gun restrictions in marathon session | Colorado Statesman .

I have been thinking about these issues for a while and am normally one that understands and has no problem with - proper - compromise in the political area. Especially considering the history of compromise engaged in by the Founding Fathers at the creation of our country.

BUT!, in that consideration I came to realize that when it comes to our Civil Liberties, all of the compromise necessary has already been made by OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. They have already been there and done that. Nothing else need be done. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

The left doesn't argue for restriction of any of the other rights in the B.O.R. with the exception of the exercise of religion. Everything else they seek to expand for the individual. Even rights that don't really exist. So, there is no reason and every precedent not, to capitulate by compromise or any other process.

I'm sorry, but after much consideration, soul searching, frustration and discussion I see no advantage in, point to, reason for or profit in compromising our Civil Liberties. Since the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, every compromise has been and will continue to be movement in reverse. And that is but a gradual slide into tyranny.

To quote Ben Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety . . ."

And I certainly don't recall Patrick Henry as saying: "Take my Liberty and give me Safety." I think his actual phraseology had more to do with dying for Liberty? What do you think?

Does anyone here think that our Founding Fathers would approve. I certainly do not. Time to

 

[ultra...good]

No more compromise at all, none, zero.

^^^^^That right there says it all. It is where I am at with this and I am not moving. When it comes to future negotiations where I do not benefit, the same goes. No more give for minority issues, illegal immigration, gay rights, not a darn bit. I am against anything and everything that does not benefit me exclusively and I am not willing to compromise. If you, or they want it from me, it will have to be taken.
I am so tired of this constant push to grind away the 2A for the reason of protecting the innocent. There are bigger issues to deal with and other ways to address the criminal mind set that will yield more effective results. I do not care anymore and am not concerned with what type of label I will be branded with. My days of compromise and understanding are behind me.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is a copy/paste from a post I made on SnipersHide last week on this very topic...

Politicians seem to know a new federal AWB is politically DOA. They also know a standard capacity magazine ban is at best a 50/50 proposition, and realistically an arbitrary limit to 10rd will be difficult if not impossible.

So all the leftists and their patsies in the media have latched onto the idea of universal background checks as the "sweet spot" for reducing "gun violence". Of course, these same folks who say 40% of guns are purchased without a background check are either accidentally or purposefully ignorant of the fact that study was exceedingly small in scope, over 20 years old, and actually said "as high as 40%"...and couldn't tell you exactly how many of those 40% purchased without a background check are ever used in the commission of a crime.

Everybody on this board knows that UBC won't actually reduce crime committed with firearms, and will add yet another layer of cost & bureaucracy on law-abiding gun owners. We also know there is no practical way to enforce UBCs without sweeping registration of every existing firearm.

That having been said - if a mechanism was put in place that would allow private intra-state sellers to voluntarily perform a NICS check on buyers via phone or internet, without the need to go to an FFL and pay a transfer fee and with current NICS recordkeeping policies, would you utilize such a mechanism?

Again - we all know such a program (voluntary or mandatory) wouldn't reduce crime, and those on the left would say a voluntary program would be a "massive loophole" needing closed. But recommending such a program would do a few things:

1. Erase the image that gun owners are uncompromising, uncaring "nuts"
2. Show we desire to keep firearms away from those who shouldn't have them
3. Protect the privacy & legality of those who don't wish to participate
4. Put anti-gunners in a position to publicly explain why this middle-of-the-road compromise providing a mechanism for law-abiding gun owners to perform easy, no-cost voluntary background checks (which does not exist today) would somehow be worse than status quo.

I get that some say "Give an inch and they'll take a mile", "It only leads to registration and confiscation", "NO COMPROMISE!", etc.

I say politics is chess not checkers, and we as gun owners need to be as politically savvy as Democrats have become over the last decade at out-maneuvering the right and painting their opposition as unreasonable.

We need to beat them at their own game, and put THEM on the defensive...and I think voluntary checks would satisfy the anti-gunners desire to "DO SOMETHING" post-Newtown, while effectively changing nothing on our end.

Thoughts? I've got my flame suit on...

If it was truly, completely, absolutely, and irrevocably voluntary, I might be able to accept this. The down side is that it cannot be any of those things and by utilizing it, you're entering in the registry we all know has been assembled over the last many years one more person or one more instance by which those who attempt to confiscate will know to look for yet another firearm when they come and put a black bag over the person's head and haul them away.

For those using the "P" word in response to the above, "Just because you're paranoid does not mean "they" aren't out to get you!"

I'm not giving up any more rights. Too many of the politicians see a "Sandy Hook", write a bill to address it, and use that extreme position as the point from which we should begin the "national dialogue". Example: Sen. Feinstein's AWB bill. It's a laundry list of every gun-banner's wet dreams. She knew it would not pass, but pushed it anyway. UBC was her goal. "Well, if I remove the AWB from it but leave magazine capacity and UBC in it, will you accept that? OK, I'll take out magazine capacity... Now see, I've given up two-thirds of my bill, and all you've done is demand... you have to accept UBC now. That's what compromise is!"
In reality, it should be the other way around. "Oh, you're asking for AWB, mag capacity, and UBC... Here's the Constitution. None of that is allowable under the document you swore to uphold. You get bupkis. And BTW, the NFA, carry licenses, the GCA, including the whole FFL system and the ATF? Yeah, those are unConstitutional, too, so they'll be going away. Anything else you'd like to compromise, Senator Feinstein?"

The answer to UBC and any of the proposed crap is a simple, flat, unmistakeable, "NO."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[04DarkShadowGT]

To the people saying, not one more inch. What are you going to do if something passes? You going to leave? You going to fight back and start shooting people like Yeager? Or are you just going to not comply, thereby becoming a criminal?

We don't really control anything, we have some influence over our own IN representatives but nothing else really. We don't have a seat at the bargaining table, we are just being taken on the ride and hoping those we voted for will do enough to stop what we don't want done.

Imo the not one more inch stuff is just internet grandstanding, we fight with letters to our senators, mayors, congressmen, etc. We show up in support on rallys and protests. But when it comes down to it, and a back ground check law is passed are you going to just not do it and risk jail time and being away from your family and putting them in financial peril?

 

[TopDog]

If I had to choose I would. But the point is we don't have to choose.

So I stay with no compromise. Every single compromise, even if it's in a state other than IN is a step towards destroying the 2A. The leftist Democrats know that all too well. What everyone needs to be aware of is that the leftist Democrats have stated openly their end game is total disarmament. If they have to do it one tiny step at a time, that is OK with them. They are on a mission from their God, a mission that the Liberal Biased media pounds into their heads multiple times a day. If we owned the media like the socialist do then this would have never even got started.

The only way we win this war is by wining every battle we can. This is a war of attrition and unfortunately we are out gunned. If you can think of this as a war then try to put the liberal media in the role of supply. The other side has logistics on their side. The only real weapon we have is the fear of politicians being voted out and losing their gravy train. I will however say that some politicians are showing their colors and actually standing up for the Constitution, good on them. A politician with morals and ethics still exist.

Every time a ban of any kind in any state we all lose a battle, lose too many battle's and you eventually lose the war.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

I will not compromise. My rights are not negotiable.

We as gun owners have already "compromised" too much. Enough is enough.

 

[Lucas156]

Legislators need to introduce a bill to legalize full auto. We should be on the offense not defense

 

[Scutter01]

Legislators need to introduce a bill to legalize full auto. We should be on the offense not defense

That one's easy. Just repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

 

[Smokepole]

To the people saying, not one more inch. What are you going to do if something passes? You going to leave? You going to fight back and start shooting people like Yeager? Or are you just going to not comply, thereby becoming a criminal?

We don't really control anything, we have some influence over our own IN representatives but nothing else really. We don't have a seat at the bargaining table, we are just being taken on the ride and hoping those we voted for will do enough to stop what we don't want done.

Imo the not one more inch stuff is just internet grandstanding, we fight with letters to our senators, mayors, congressmen, etc. We show up in support on rallys and protests. But when it comes down to it, and a back ground check law is passed are you going to just not do it and risk jail time and being away from your family and putting them in financial peril?

So what are you advocating? We just roll over, present our backsides and let them do whatever they wish, Vaseline or not? We advocate fighting with all of the legal and Constitutional means at our disposal while not compromising. The whole deal here is about not accepting compromise in the process. And our side has been compromising every time the discussion comes up. And as I said in my earlier post, our Founding Father did all of the compromising when they wrote the Bill of Rights and any compromise regarding those Rights is movement in reverse and willfully backsliding into tyranny. And I ain't about to go there willfully. You won't find me advocating or acceding to compromise.

If it passes I will comply. Only because I can not do my family any good from jail. But if the time comes for patriots to take other stronger action . . . .